Dark Matter; Real? Or Imagined?

[zaangalewa]

... I did read what you wrote. You are essentially agreeing with me.

I agree with nothing what you say and specially I do absolutelly not agree with the way how you say what you say.

It's a fudge factor.

You love it to babble. Tell me how to solve the problem Fritz Zwicky formulated in 1933 the first time in context Viralsatz (=~¿viral sentence?) or Vera Rubin made popular in context rotation curve. ... Oh I see now... In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort calculated with 0.092 sun masses per parsec^3 although it were only known in 1932 0.038 sun masses per parsec^3. Why is this so? What is 'dark'? What do we not see? Why do we still not see, what we were not able to see since 1932 - although it has effects, which we are able to measure? What's wrong?

You mean besides not being able to describe the fundamental composition of matter which supposedly makes up 85% of the universe?

I hate this aggressive nonsense style of US-Americans in all forms of "discussions". It's always stupid - and never interesting. Asides: What do you call why 85% in this context?

Do you understand how dark matter is supposedly created?

God made it. So it's a good thing. The only problem is we still don't know what it is exactly so we are able to use better ways of mathematics in combination with reality. We are still not able to explain what we "see" - or not able to explain what it makes to an delusion what we see - if it is a delusion, what seems not to be very plausible in case of dark matter (not so in case of dark energy, what's a totally different thing).

A piece of wood (matter) burns for example and sends out light. That it has a mass is onyl one criterion if it hits someones head for example. The word matter (material) is perhaps a totally wrong idea. No one knows. Gravity per se is only an effect of a dengled space time - better to say it is a bent space-time. What is able to bend space-timè? Only matter?

 

[ding]

... I did read what you wrote. You are essentially agreeing with me.

I agree with nothing what you say and specially I do absolutelly not agree with the way how you say what you say.

It's a fudge factor.

You love it to babble. Tell me how to solve the problem Fritz Zwicky formulated in 1933 the first time in context Viralsatz (=~¿viral sentence?) or Vera Rubin made popular in context rotation curve. ... Oh I see now... In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort calculated with 0.092 sun masses per parsec^3 although it were only known in 1932 0.038 sun masses per parsec^3. Why is this so? What is 'dark'? What do we not see? Why do we still not see, what we were not able to see since 1932 - although it has effects, which we are able to measure? What's wrong?

You mean besides not being able to describe the fundamental composition of matter which supposedly makes up 85% of the universe?

I hate this aggressive nonsense style of US-Americans in all forms of "discussions". It's always stupid - and never interesting. Asides: What do you call why 85% in this context?

To make calculations match observations they say that dark matter accounts for 85% of the matter in the universe.

How are we able to know this while we are not able to know the total amount of energy of the universe?

But we do know the total amount of energy....

"...Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

... I did read what you wrote. You are essentially agreeing with me.

I agree with nothing what you say and specially I do absolutelly not agree with the way how you say what you say.

It's a fudge factor.

You love it to babble. Tell me how to solve the problem Fritz Zwicky formulated in 1933 the first time in context Viralsatz (=~¿viral sentence?) or Vera Rubin made popular in context rotation curve. ... Oh I see now... In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort calculated with 0.092 sun masses per parsec^3 although it were only known in 1932 0.038 sun masses per parsec^3. Why is this so? What is 'dark'? What do we not see? Why do we still not see, what we were not able to see since 1932 - although it has effects, which we are able to measure? What's wrong?

You mean besides not being able to describe the fundamental composition of matter which supposedly makes up 85% of the universe?

I hate this aggressive nonsense style of US-Americans in all forms of "discussions". It's always stupid - and never interesting. Asides: What do you call why 85% in this context?

Do you understand how dark matter is supposedly created?

God made it. So it's a good thing. The only problem is we still don't know what it is exactly so we are able to use better ways of mathematics in combination with reality. We are still not able to explain what we "see" - or not able to explain what it makes to an delusion what we see - if it is a delusion, what seems not to be very plausible in case of dark matter (not so in case of dark energy, what's a totally different thing).

A piece of wood (matter) burns for example and sends out light. That it has a mass is onyl one criterion if it hits someones head for example. The word matter (material) is perhaps a totally wrong idea. No one knows. Gravity per se is only an effect of a dengled space time - better to say it is a bent space-time. What is able to bend space-timè? Only matter?

So the answer is no. You don't know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Even I know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Dark matter is created by the expansion of the universe. Such that as the volume grows the added volume was not perfectly empty. So as the universe continues to expand, the amount of dark matter increases proportionately.

So all of my questions still stand. And have not been answered.

 

[zaangalewa]

... I did read what you wrote. You are essentially agreeing with me.

I agree with nothing what you say and specially I do absolutelly not agree with the way how you say what you say.

It's a fudge factor.

You love it to babble. Tell me how to solve the problem Fritz Zwicky formulated in 1933 the first time in context Viralsatz (=~¿viral sentence?) or Vera Rubin made popular in context rotation curve. ... Oh I see now... In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort calculated with 0.092 sun masses per parsec^3 although it were only known in 1932 0.038 sun masses per parsec^3. Why is this so? What is 'dark'? What do we not see? Why do we still not see, what we were not able to see since 1932 - although it has effects, which we are able to measure? What's wrong?

You mean besides not being able to describe the fundamental composition of matter which supposedly makes up 85% of the universe?

I hate this aggressive nonsense style of US-Americans in all forms of "discussions". It's always stupid - and never interesting. Asides: What do you call why 85% in this context?

To make calculations match observations they say that dark matter accounts for 85% of the matter in the universe.

How are we able to know this while we are not able to know the total amount of energy of the universe?

But we do know the total amount of energy....

"...Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

no comment

 

[zaangalewa]

... I did read what you wrote. You are essentially agreeing with me.

I agree with nothing what you say and specially I do absolutelly not agree with the way how you say what you say.

It's a fudge factor.

You love it to babble. Tell me how to solve the problem Fritz Zwicky formulated in 1933 the first time in context Viralsatz (=~¿viral sentence?) or Vera Rubin made popular in context rotation curve. ... Oh I see now... In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort calculated with 0.092 sun masses per parsec^3 although it were only known in 1932 0.038 sun masses per parsec^3. Why is this so? What is 'dark'? What do we not see? Why do we still not see, what we were not able to see since 1932 - although it has effects, which we are able to measure? What's wrong?

You mean besides not being able to describe the fundamental composition of matter which supposedly makes up 85% of the universe?

I hate this aggressive nonsense style of US-Americans in all forms of "discussions". It's always stupid - and never interesting. Asides: What do you call why 85% in this context?

Do you understand how dark matter is supposedly created?

God made it. So it's a good thing. The only problem is we still don't know what it is exactly so we are able to use better ways of mathematics in combination with reality. We are still not able to explain what we "see" - or not able to explain what it makes to an delusion what we see - if it is a delusion, what seems not to be very plausible in case of dark matter (not so in case of dark energy, what's a totally different thing).

A piece of wood (matter) burns for example and sends out light. That it has a mass is onyl one criterion if it hits someones head for example. The word matter (material) is perhaps a totally wrong idea. No one knows. Gravity per se is only an effect of a dengled space time - better to say it is a bent space-time. What is able to bend space-timè? Only matter?

So the answer is no. You don't know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Even I know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Dark matter is created by the expansion of the universe.

You confuse here the expressions "dark matter" and "dark energy", which are totally different. As far as I know in the moment it is possible that the ideas around "dark energy" are basing on a mistake. Not so dark matter.

Such that as the volume grows the added volume was not perfectly empty.

?

So as the universe continues to expand, the amount of dark matter increases proportionately.

Sounds crazy.

So all of my questions still stand. And have not been answered.

Strange.

 

[ding]

... I did read what you wrote. You are essentially agreeing with me.

I agree with nothing what you say and specially I do absolutelly not agree with the way how you say what you say.

It's a fudge factor.

You love it to babble. Tell me how to solve the problem Fritz Zwicky formulated in 1933 the first time in context Viralsatz (=~¿viral sentence?) or Vera Rubin made popular in context rotation curve. ... Oh I see now... In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort calculated with 0.092 sun masses per parsec^3 although it were only known in 1932 0.038 sun masses per parsec^3. Why is this so? What is 'dark'? What do we not see? Why do we still not see, what we were not able to see since 1932 - although it has effects, which we are able to measure? What's wrong?

You mean besides not being able to describe the fundamental composition of matter which supposedly makes up 85% of the universe?

I hate this aggressive nonsense style of US-Americans in all forms of "discussions". It's always stupid - and never interesting. Asides: What do you call why 85% in this context?

To make calculations match observations they say that dark matter accounts for 85% of the matter in the universe.

How are we able to know this while we are not able to know the total amount of energy of the universe?

But we do know the total amount of energy....

"...Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

no comment

Exactly. They know how much energy the universe started with. And they know that that is not enough matter for the expansion that they think they see. So to make calculations match observations they created dark matter. The calculations and observations are so far off that they have to add almost 6 times more matter than we started with.

The problem is that they are silent on how that matter is added without violating the conservation of energy (unlike the big bang which actually has an explanation), they are silent on which particles constitute this dark matter and they are silent on how this so called dark matter isn't affected by gravitation.

 

[ding]

... I did read what you wrote. You are essentially agreeing with me.

I agree with nothing what you say and specially I do absolutelly not agree with the way how you say what you say.

It's a fudge factor.

You love it to babble. Tell me how to solve the problem Fritz Zwicky formulated in 1933 the first time in context Viralsatz (=~¿viral sentence?) or Vera Rubin made popular in context rotation curve. ... Oh I see now... In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort calculated with 0.092 sun masses per parsec^3 although it were only known in 1932 0.038 sun masses per parsec^3. Why is this so? What is 'dark'? What do we not see? Why do we still not see, what we were not able to see since 1932 - although it has effects, which we are able to measure? What's wrong?

You mean besides not being able to describe the fundamental composition of matter which supposedly makes up 85% of the universe?

I hate this aggressive nonsense style of US-Americans in all forms of "discussions". It's always stupid - and never interesting. Asides: What do you call why 85% in this context?

Do you understand how dark matter is supposedly created?

God made it. So it's a good thing. The only problem is we still don't know what it is exactly so we are able to use better ways of mathematics in combination with reality. We are still not able to explain what we "see" - or not able to explain what it makes to an delusion what we see - if it is a delusion, what seems not to be very plausible in case of dark matter (not so in case of dark energy, what's a totally different thing).

A piece of wood (matter) burns for example and sends out light. That it has a mass is onyl one criterion if it hits someones head for example. The word matter (material) is perhaps a totally wrong idea. No one knows. Gravity per se is only an effect of a dengled space time - better to say it is a bent space-time. What is able to bend space-timè? Only matter?

So the answer is no. You don't know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Even I know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Dark matter is created by the expansion of the universe.

You confuse here the expressions "dark matter" and "dark energy", which are totally different. As far as I knowin the moment it is possible that the ideas around "dark energy" are basing on a mistake. Not so dark matter.

Such that as the volume grows the added volume was not perfectly empty.

?

So as the universe continues to expand, the amount of dark matter increases proportionately.

Sounds crazy.

So all of my questions still stand. And have not been answered.

Strange.

Actually they aren't. All matter is energy. The matter in our universe began as energy (i.e. subatomic particles) and then quickly formed hydrogen and helium. Dark matter also starts off as energy. The problem is that they aren't very clear which particles form the dark energy which later becomes dark matter.

 

[zaangalewa]

... I did read what you wrote. You are essentially agreeing with me.

I agree with nothing what you say and specially I do absolutelly not agree with the way how you say what you say.

It's a fudge factor.

You love it to babble. Tell me how to solve the problem Fritz Zwicky formulated in 1933 the first time in context Viralsatz (=~¿viral sentence?) or Vera Rubin made popular in context rotation curve. ... Oh I see now... In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort calculated with 0.092 sun masses per parsec^3 although it were only known in 1932 0.038 sun masses per parsec^3. Why is this so? What is 'dark'? What do we not see? Why do we still not see, what we were not able to see since 1932 - although it has effects, which we are able to measure? What's wrong?

You mean besides not being able to describe the fundamental composition of matter which supposedly makes up 85% of the universe?

I hate this aggressive nonsense style of US-Americans in all forms of "discussions". It's always stupid - and never interesting. Asides: What do you call why 85% in this context?

To make calculations match observations they say that dark matter accounts for 85% of the matter in the universe.

How are we able to know this while we are not able to know the total amount of energy of the universe?

But we do know the total amount of energy....

"...Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

no comment

Exactly. They know how much energy the universe started with. And they know that that is not enough matter for the expansion that they think they see. So to make calculations match observations they created dark matter. The calculations and observations are so far off that they have to add almost 6 times more matter than we started with.

The problem is that they are silent on how that matter is added without violating the conservation of energy (unlike the big bang which actually has an explanation), they are silent on which particles constitute this dark matter and they are silent on how this so called dark matter isn't affected by gravitation.

no comment

 

[zaangalewa]

... I did read what you wrote. You are essentially agreeing with me.

I agree with nothing what you say and specially I do absolutelly not agree with the way how you say what you say.

It's a fudge factor.

You love it to babble. Tell me how to solve the problem Fritz Zwicky formulated in 1933 the first time in context Viralsatz (=~¿viral sentence?) or Vera Rubin made popular in context rotation curve. ... Oh I see now... In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort calculated with 0.092 sun masses per parsec^3 although it were only known in 1932 0.038 sun masses per parsec^3. Why is this so? What is 'dark'? What do we not see? Why do we still not see, what we were not able to see since 1932 - although it has effects, which we are able to measure? What's wrong?

You mean besides not being able to describe the fundamental composition of matter which supposedly makes up 85% of the universe?

I hate this aggressive nonsense style of US-Americans in all forms of "discussions". It's always stupid - and never interesting. Asides: What do you call why 85% in this context?

Do you understand how dark matter is supposedly created?

God made it. So it's a good thing. The only problem is we still don't know what it is exactly so we are able to use better ways of mathematics in combination with reality. We are still not able to explain what we "see" - or not able to explain what it makes to an delusion what we see - if it is a delusion, what seems not to be very plausible in case of dark matter (not so in case of dark energy, what's a totally different thing).

A piece of wood (matter) burns for example and sends out light. That it has a mass is onyl one criterion if it hits someones head for example. The word matter (material) is perhaps a totally wrong idea. No one knows. Gravity per se is only an effect of a dengled space time - better to say it is a bent space-time. What is able to bend space-timè? Only matter?

So the answer is no. You don't know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Even I know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Dark matter is created by the expansion of the universe.

You confuse here the expressions "dark matter" and "dark energy", which are totally different. As far as I knowin the moment it is possible that the ideas around "dark energy" are basing on a mistake. Not so dark matter.

Such that as the volume grows the added volume was not perfectly empty.

?

So as the universe continues to expand, the amount of dark matter increases proportionately.

Sounds crazy.

So all of my questions still stand. And have not been answered.

Strange.

Actually they aren't. All matter is energy. The matter in our universe began as energy and then quickly formed hydrogen and helium. Dark matter also starts of as energy. The problem is that they aren't very clear which particles form the dark energy which later becomes dark matter.

no comment

 

[ding]

... I did read what you wrote. You are essentially agreeing with me.

I agree with nothing what you say and specially I do absolutelly not agree with the way how you say what you say.

It's a fudge factor.

You love it to babble. Tell me how to solve the problem Fritz Zwicky formulated in 1933 the first time in context Viralsatz (=~¿viral sentence?) or Vera Rubin made popular in context rotation curve. ... Oh I see now... In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort calculated with 0.092 sun masses per parsec^3 although it were only known in 1932 0.038 sun masses per parsec^3. Why is this so? What is 'dark'? What do we not see? Why do we still not see, what we were not able to see since 1932 - although it has effects, which we are able to measure? What's wrong?

You mean besides not being able to describe the fundamental composition of matter which supposedly makes up 85% of the universe?

I hate this aggressive nonsense style of US-Americans in all forms of "discussions". It's always stupid - and never interesting. Asides: What do you call why 85% in this context?

Do you understand how dark matter is supposedly created?

God made it. So it's a good thing. The only problem is we still don't know what it is exactly so we are able to use better ways of mathematics in combination with reality. We are still not able to explain what we "see" - or not able to explain what it makes to an delusion what we see - if it is a delusion, what seems not to be very plausible in case of dark matter (not so in case of dark energy, what's a totally different thing).

A piece of wood (matter) burns for example and sends out light. That it has a mass is onyl one criterion if it hits someones head for example. The word matter (material) is perhaps a totally wrong idea. No one knows. Gravity per se is only an effect of a dengled space time - better to say it is a bent space-time. What is able to bend space-timè? Only matter?

So the answer is no. You don't know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Even I know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Dark matter is created by the expansion of the universe.

You confuse here the expressions "dark matter" and "dark energy", which are totally different. As far as I know in the moment it is possible that the ideas around "dark energy" are basing on a mistake. Not so dark matter.

Such that as the volume grows the added volume was not perfectly empty.

?

So as the universe continues to expand, the amount of dark matter increases proportionately.

Sounds crazy.

So all of my questions still stand. And have not been answered.

Strange.

Can you explain to me your understanding of how dark matter and dark energy are different and your understanding of how each comes about? Do you believe dark energy and dark matter are totally unrelated?

 

[zaangalewa]

... I did read what you wrote. You are essentially agreeing with me.

I agree with nothing what you say and specially I do absolutelly not agree with the way how you say what you say.

It's a fudge factor.

You love it to babble. Tell me how to solve the problem Fritz Zwicky formulated in 1933 the first time in context Viralsatz (=~¿viral sentence?) or Vera Rubin made popular in context rotation curve. ... Oh I see now... In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort calculated with 0.092 sun masses per parsec^3 although it were only known in 1932 0.038 sun masses per parsec^3. Why is this so? What is 'dark'? What do we not see? Why do we still not see, what we were not able to see since 1932 - although it has effects, which we are able to measure? What's wrong?

You mean besides not being able to describe the fundamental composition of matter which supposedly makes up 85% of the universe?

I hate this aggressive nonsense style of US-Americans in all forms of "discussions". It's always stupid - and never interesting. Asides: What do you call why 85% in this context?

Do you understand how dark matter is supposedly created?

God made it. So it's a good thing. The only problem is we still don't know what it is exactly so we are able to use better ways of mathematics in combination with reality. We are still not able to explain what we "see" - or not able to explain what it makes to an delusion what we see - if it is a delusion, what seems not to be very plausible in case of dark matter (not so in case of dark energy, what's a totally different thing).

A piece of wood (matter) burns for example and sends out light. That it has a mass is onyl one criterion if it hits someones head for example. The word matter (material) is perhaps a totally wrong idea. No one knows. Gravity per se is only an effect of a dengled space time - better to say it is a bent space-time. What is able to bend space-timè? Only matter?

So the answer is no. You don't know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Even I know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Dark matter is created by the expansion of the universe.

You confuse here the expressions "dark matter" and "dark energy", which are totally different. As far as I know in the moment it is possible that the ideas around "dark energy" are basing on a mistake. Not so dark matter.

Such that as the volume grows the added volume was not perfectly empty.

?

So as the universe continues to expand, the amount of dark matter increases proportionately.

Sounds crazy.

So all of my questions still stand. And have not been answered.

Strange.

Can you explain to me how dark matter and dark energy are different and how each comes about? Do you believe they are totally unrelated?

no comment

 

[Dalia]

More importantly, does dark matter matter?

Not particularly.

The question is for how long will the crazy democraps be able to support the term Dark Matter? will they consider the term racist or not?

 

[Quasar44]

....

What are the evidences of dark matter?

Still what Vera Rubin found out in context of the rotation of the galaxy Andromeda is a very impressing question, which makes plaubsible the existence of "dark matter" (better to say: "unknown mass" - or "still unknown source of something what looks like gravitational force").

Here an example for the galaxy Messier 33:

Rotation curve of spiral galaxy Messier 33 (yellow and blue points with error bars), and a predicted one from distribution of the visible matter (gray line). The discrepancy between the two curves can be accounted for by adding a dark matter halo surrounding the galaxy.

Otherwise known as a fudge factor.

May I ask, why you say such an unbelievable stupid nonsense? Do you love pub brawls?

The path velocity far from the bulge of a galaxy should be proportional in an idealized Kepler system to the squareroot of the reziprocal radius. Why is it not?

Dark gravity is true
100 percent proven
It’s an undiscovered particle

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What type of matter is dark matter?
Of which particles consist dark matter?
How does dark matter arise?
What are the evidences of dark matter?

Great questions! Dunno.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I say it because that's exactly what it is; a fudge factor to make observations match calculations.

Maybe. Either it isn't, or we are missing something about gravity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So to make calculations match observations they created dark matter.

Or discovered it, depending on what transpires.

 

[ding]

So to make calculations match observations they created dark matter.

Or discovered it, depending on what transpires.

To discover it they'd have to say, "here... look at this particle."

 

[ding]

I say it because that's exactly what it is; a fudge factor to make observations match calculations.

Maybe. Either it isn't, or we are missing something about gravity.

Or the measurement of the acceleration of the universe.

 

[ReinyDays]

I say it because that's exactly what it is; a fudge factor to make observations match calculations.

Maybe. Either it isn't, or we are missing something about gravity.

I can hear the physicists laughing from here ... they've avoided having to announce Universal Field Theory for yet another generation ... something we learned in all this Cancer research, how to milk that grant teat for a century ... as soon as anyone admits GR is wrong, a mess of folks lose their jobs ...

Strictly speaking ... since I'm the only one who believes this ... it's NOT a Conspiracy Theory ... just to be clear on that matter ...

 

[Missourian]

I suspect dark matter is just the current iteration of the Ptolemaic epicycle...a hypotheses that fits observation but is likely erroneous due to processes that are not yet discovered or properly understood.